PolyNewbie Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 I think companies like Walmart will benefit from RFID in tracking their inventory. I think the British Empire will also benefit from RFID by being able to track their inventory US So I am not in favour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Please explain what you are asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 The insidious nature of RFID chips is that it is easy to implant them into people without their consent. They are tiny little objects under the skin (but can really be inserted deeper) and a person may never know they have it. With the help of rooffies, a person can wake up with the a bruise hiding an injection site without knowing the source and Voila! he is on the grid. I just got a great business idea: design an anti-RFID detection scanner service. Maybe I should "copyright" or "patent" this "intellectual property" right really fast before anybody steals it! Ooops! It is now out there in the open! Maybe I should develop a unique surgical extraction technique! or an anti-RFID jammer that can neutralize them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 It's a completely unjustified invasion of personal privacy. If photo ID is no longer sufficient and some more reliable method of personal identification is required, non-invasive options such as fingerprints or iris scans exist. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 whoops. I voted yes by mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 If photo ID is no longer sufficient and some more reliable method of personal identification is required, non-invasive options such as fingerprints or iris scans exist.Hmm.... let me pick your brains on this one. Is the invasiveness the only problem to you? I can take your fingerprints, scan your eyeballs and leave you without any knowledge of my invasion of your privacy. Would that be fine with you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted March 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 whoops. I voted yes by mistake. Thats a relief. People in favour of this really scare me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Is this question about implantation of RFID chips in unknowing victims? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 If photo ID is no longer sufficient and some more reliable method of personal identification is required, non-invasive options such as fingerprints or iris scans exist.Hmm.... let me pick your brains on this one. Is the invasiveness the only problem to you? I can take your fingerprints, scan your eyeballs and leave you without any knowledge of my invasion of your privacy. Would that be fine with you? If we are going to be using fingerprints or iris scanning as a means of personal identification, then I think that people should be informed when their prints are scanned, and when they are checked. IE: if you're using a thumbprint as ID when you enter a nightclub, you stick your thumb on a scanning pad that is clearly identified as an identity verification device. Aside from that quibble, no, I don't really see a problem. What concerns you: the idea that if your fingerprints are in a database, the police might have access to that information? I ... don't actually see a problem. Is it really a bad thing if this interferes with robbers and murderers' ability to carry out their chosen professions? My attitude toward this is much like my attitude toward security cameras in public places. I don't believe that people have a right to privacy when they're in a public place. I believe that if you're worried that you might be identified while doing something you don't want to be identified while doing, perhaps you shouldn't be doing that anyway. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 I believe that if you're worried that you might be identified while doing something you don't want to be identified while doing, perhaps you shouldn't be doing that anyway.You are smarter than that. Why are you so complacent? Paying civil servants to collect data, pretending they have authority over this information and trusting the connection this data has with the identities of real people is a stupidly submissive acceptance of technology. I call that suckers with cellphones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Seriously, lay it out for me: from the perspective of peoples' privacy, what's wrong with the idea of peoples' fingerprints being on record at a database? Hypothetically: suppose facial recognition software becomes sufficiently advanced that security camera footage could be linked to driver's license photos with a high degree of accuracy. So that a computer somewhere could examine the security camera footage, examine the drivers license database, and determine "The person who entered the airport is ...Charles Anthony." "The person who entered the bank is... Kimmy." "The person who arrived at the mental hospital is... Pnoob." Is that ok? Or is that a problem? Would you personally choose to start wearing a Groucho Marx nose/glasses/moustache when you go out in public? If so, why? If not, why not? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 The more technology we use to combat crime and to keep our identities ours, the more technology the criminals have access to. It has always been the case where a new technology will come out to fight crime and only a short time later, the criminals have found a way around it. They are always two steps ahead. Crime will continue to grow regardless of if you install more security cameras and RDIF tags in people. It will not prevent people from doing stupid things. And also being in a public place, you still have a right to privacy. Hell even that one report in Britian about a lady getting beat on by some cops on a security camera. A crime was committed here and the cameras proved ineffective of stopping it. The security measures won't be able to stop crime, it will only be able to record it, then prove that a crime happened. It just makes it easier for criminals to be prosecuted, but again it will NOT stop crime. Paying civil servants to collect data, pretending they have authority over this information and trusting the connection this data has with the identities of real people is a stupidly submissive acceptance of technology. I call that suckers with cellphones. Cellphones have GPS tracking. Cellphone calls can be tricangulated and found. If you have your cellophone on with you, then you have the potential to be tracked. RDIF tags does not give you this option. RDIF may help with identity theft, but since the tag can be reprogrammed using a specific scanning computer, it would not be hard to just 'download' a new identity in the RDIF chip. No implants for me please. IE: if you're using a thumbprint as ID when you enter a nightclub, you stick your thumb on a scanning pad that is clearly identified as an identity verification device. There is no way in hell I am submitting to a fingerprint scan before I enter a nightclub. I go to nightclubs to have a good time, let loose. Already with a thumbscan I am being 'booked' by the nightclub bouncers, taking inventory of what is inside. Polynewbie is not far off on this here. With more technology we have more crime and more variations of crime. And it only gets worse and worse, crime does not go away, it moves to different areas for a while then comes back. No RDIF chip in my skin thanks. EDIT (addition) So if we are concerned about priacy, why are many companies always having security breaches and identities are stolen. Kimmy, facial recognition technology is interesting from a geek POV, however, there can still be problems with it. Computer may have a glitch or something messed in the programming, so that person 'Kimmy from A' that entered the airport is actually 'Fred from H'. I work plenty with computers. One thing I can say about databases is that they are never up to date enough. And many many things go wrong with computers. Trust me after 4 years of help desk working for Time Warner, anything can be tampered with. I had never done anything criminal auff at the call center, but I have seen malicious stuff go on by employees to management or even the customers we served as well. The one guy was caught and fired right away. Get to know the technology/internet/computers and you will find out how lacking it really is in the security. 1's and 0's can be easily be manipulated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Seriously, lay it out for me:Simple: I do not trust civil servants with private data. Do you? Hypothetically: suppose facial recognition software becomes ---SNIP--- a computer somewhere could ---SNIP--- Is that ok? Or is that a problem? Yes, it is a problem. Data can be fudged. Call me PN008E and I will call you Mark Furman. Would you personally choose to start wearing a Groucho Marx nose/glasses/moustache when you go out in public? If so, why? If not, why not?Yes, anarchists do not have a great reputation. However, I also object to my taxes going to fund the collection of boondoggles. Do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 The insidious nature of RFID chips is that it is easy to implant them into people without their consent.They are tiny little objects under the skin (but can really be inserted deeper) and a person may never know they have it. With the help of rooffies, a person can wake up with the a bruise hiding an injection site without knowing the source and Voila! he is on the grid. I just got a great business idea: design an anti-RFID detection scanner service. Maybe I should "copyright" or "patent" this "intellectual property" right really fast before anybody steals it! Ooops! It is now out there in the open! Maybe I should develop a unique surgical extraction technique! or an anti-RFID jammer that can neutralize them! Um....you are about two years too late. There are pouches for RFID products able to hide the chip data from getting scanned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Um....you are about two years too late. There are pouches for RFID products able to hide the chip data from getting scanned.Um... if you have the chip inserted into your body without knowing, how would that help? Full body armour? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Seriously, lay it out for me: from the perspective of peoples' privacy, what's wrong with the idea of peoples' fingerprints being on record at a database? Because there are bad people. A database is controlled by people. I don't have a problem with the 'database' but with 'people' being able to access that information. Pretty simple really. Therefore no database. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted March 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 FigLeaf:Is this question about implantation of RFID chips in unknowing victims Should government put RFID chips in everyone to ensure proper ID ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Seriously, lay it out for me:Simple: I do not trust civil servants with private data. Do you? We already do. I'm more concerned with what they might do with my medical or financial information than with my fingerprints. Is the fear that corrupt police will frame people for crimes? Create fake fingerprints using some sort of high-tech process, then plant the prints at crime scenes to "prove" that an innocent person was actually there? It seems hokey and far fetched to me, but very well. What, then, about iris scanning? Your iris isn't left behind at crime scenes, your iris would be very difficult to scan without your knowledge, and I can't think of any plausible way that the information could be misused. Hypothetically: suppose facial recognition software becomes ---SNIP--- a computer somewhere could ---SNIP--- Is that ok? Or is that a problem? Yes, it is a problem. Data can be fudged. Call me PN008E and I will call you Mark Furman. Without elaborate technology to create "fake fingerprints" that could be used to produce fake evidence, I'm not sure what harmful effects could come from having this information on file, and I can't even guess as to how it might be "fudged". The case becomes even more remote for iris scanning, since irises aren't left at crime scenes, and are far too complicated a structure to be duplicated or "fudged". Would you personally choose to start wearing a Groucho Marx nose/glasses/moustache when you go out in public? If so, why? If not, why not?Yes, anarchists do not have a great reputation. If the authorities had a vendetta against you, for whatever reason, they wouldn't need facial recognition or thumbprints to track you. However, I also object to my taxes going to fund the collection of boondoggles. Do you?Sure. But I'm interested in the ethical and philosophical aspects of this. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stignasty Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Should government put RFID chips in everyone to ensure proper ID ? Is this really an issue? I mean, has anyone in a position of authority ever proposed this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted March 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 stignasty:Is this really an issue? I mean, has anyone in a position of authority ever proposed this? You bet. Look for Devey Kidd on the web. They want chip us so they can ID us and protect us from terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted March 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 kimmy:What, then, about iris scanning? Your iris isn't left behind at crime scenes, your iris would be very difficult to scan without your knowledge, and I can't think of any plausible way that the information could be misused. Once you have this technology in place then you get to the cashless society. Once you do this you can shut off any group or individual and prevent them from making money or purchases. Then they go to the government. A tyrannical government could round up people like Hitler or Stalin just by typing in a few keys in a keyboard and watching the people line up for food and water.' Once this gets into place we are at total mercy of the government. We have lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 The security measures won't be able to stop crime, it will only be able to record it, then prove that a crime happened. It just makes it easier for criminals to be prosecuted, but again it will NOT stop crime. Identifying and prosecuting criminals is a bad thing? And the idea that an increased probability of prosecution and punishment won't deter crime is dubious. Crimes of opportunity, where there's no surveillance, no witnesses, and little chance of being caught or punished, for instance, would likely be deterred to some degree. A man was severely beaten at a public transit station last night; I find it likely that the perpetrators would have been as bold if they'd known they were being recorded and their faces would be matched to their drivers licenses. Arguments around capital punishment as a deterrent to murder usually center around the notion that increasing the punishment is not a deterrent because the offender believes he won't be caught. Measures that improve (or even believed to improve) the likelihood of catching the perpetrators are more likely to deter crime than stronger sentences. IE: if you're using a thumbprint as ID when you enter a nightclub, you stick your thumb on a scanning pad that is clearly identified as an identity verification device. There is no way in hell I am submitting to a fingerprint scan before I enter a nightclub. I go to nightclubs to have a good time, let loose. Already with a thumbscan I am being 'booked' by the nightclub bouncers, taking inventory of what is inside. Polynewbie is not far off on this here. Why? You already submit to identification. You already present photo ID when you go to a club. Some places even have patrons sign in. An establishment certainly has the right to refuse service to someone who won't provide adequate identification. If somebody is stabbed at the nightclub while you're there, the police have a legitimate interest in speaking to you. I don't see why having a record of your presence at the club that night is a bad thing. Nor do I buy into the fear that the authorities will use that information to attempt to punish you for "partying too hard". With more technology we have more crime and more variations of crime. And it only gets worse and worse, crime does not go away, it moves to different areas for a while then comes back. There is a lot more credit card crime than there was 20 years ago. Astronomically more. So, we should go back to using those roller-and-imprint devices instead of magnetic strips? Take the holograms off the front? Stop putting the 3-digit security code on the back? Stop using electronic verification? Are those the technologies that created more credit card crime? Well, no. The technologies that created more credit card crime are the ones that give people opportunity to use their credit cards. Internet commerce being the most obvious example. So if we are concerned about priacy, why are many companies always having security breaches and identities are stolen. Kimmy, facial recognition technology is interesting from a geek POV, however, there can still be problems with it. Computer may have a glitch or something messed in the programming, so that person 'Kimmy from A' that entered the airport is actually 'Fred from H'. Ok, so Fred from H is a wanted criminal, and Kimmy from A is unlucky enough to trigger facial recognition software and is detained at airport security. Oh dear. Does Kimmy spend the rest of her life in jail? Or do people quickly recognize that Kimmy is not Fred and send her on her way? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Um....you are about two years too late. There are pouches for RFID products able to hide the chip data from getting scanned.Um... if you have the chip inserted into your body without knowing, how would that help? Full body armour? By wearing a shirt made with the same stuff as the pouch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 There is no way in hell I am submitting to a fingerprint scan before I enter a nightclub. I go to nightclubs to have a good time, let loose. Already with a thumbscan I am being 'booked' by the nightclub bouncers, taking inventory of what is inside. Polynewbie is not far off on this here. And I agree . There is no way that anyone will get my fingerprints except if I get arrested. There are far too many cases of abuse on record for me to agree . Look at the Patriot Act in the US and the blatant ignoring that FBI and CIA allowed to happen. They were given special rights and abused them badly. Same goes for RFID chips. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Is the fear that corrupt police will frame people for crimes?Yes. Why would they not? Create fake fingerprints using some sort of high-tech process, then plant the prints at crime scenes to "prove" that an innocent person was actually there? It seems hokey and far fetched to me, but very well.Actually, that is not a bad idea. We should capitalize on it. What, then, about iris scanning?It sounds like a highly unprofitable line of business that belongs in the movies. It would be like somebody inventing a typewriter after we already have computers. However, I also object to my taxes going to fund the collection of boondoggles. Do you?Sure. But I'm interested in the ethical and philosophical aspects of this.When it comes to the ethics of it, I only object to the action of inserting them into people without consent. By wearing a shirt made with the same stuff as the pouch.Forgive me but I do not think you understand that these chips can be inserted ANYWHERE in your body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.